Iain McKell photographs 'The New Gypsies'

Iain McKell photographs 'The New Gypsies'

Gypsies are not just a thing of the past. Photographer Iain McKell followed a group of modern-day travelers in the English countryside for more than 10 years. His images are an intimate and insightful look at people who seek simplicity in living in horse-drawn caravans, yet still use modern technology such as Facebook. His photographs make real and raw the often-romanticized lifestyle of these modern nomads.

It's about the emotion the photographs evoke. Gypsies and their off-shoots love deceit and corruption. They are disliked partly because they are good at it ("Bury Me Standing") and I don't think there is racial prejudice in deeply disliking them. Yet, you cannot afford to get wrapped about the axle if you want to come on top of them.

To the fine webmasters at DPReview. May I please request a block button for the comments. There has been some foul disgusting racist views expressed below and I would really rather never have to read anything these people will ever write again. I'm sure they would love to block me and my opinion that people shouldn't be discriminated against, it would seem that everyone would win.

Careful now. Respect peoples' opinions as they may relate to personal experiences. I've been pick-pocketed only ONCE, where?Prague on a subway - 5 Gypsies on the prowl. Even though I caught the act, they bowled over several passengers and made their escape. They are detested on the streets there. NO racist remark just fact. They do play a mean fiddle tho. So it may balance out if you stay aware. So don't request a block if you are somewhat disgusted never having had direct experiences. No one is asking you to read these comments. Let's stick to photography.

I don't have the courage to call this series either good or bad but can say these photographs leave me without connection to, or curiosity about the subjects and the world in which they live. In fact I'm left rather disappointed — though this has everything to do with my own expectations.

That said, respect to McKell for hanging around with these people so long and seeing his project through.

A side comment aimed at those attacking posters who criticise or express their dislike of this series — relax, I say: can you imagine living in a world in which everyone liked what you like just as much as you do? That would be a kind of hell.

Seems pretty well traveled ground within portraiture tradition; reminds me a bit of some work featuring Native Americans in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century or the work of depression-era photographers of the migrant farmer population. I think, as with those photos, these present a quiet respect for subject(s). One thing that does impress upon me is the richness of colors and textures emphasized within a lack of gymnastic technique on the part of the photographer.

I had the same feeling of having seen these before, but it left me with less regard for these. The techniques and viewpoint used by Edward Curtis and those who followed him were new and expressed a clear viewpoint on the personalities of the subjects and the fading of a culture.

These seem to be trying to use that visual language, but apply it where I'm not sure it fits. My (very limited) experience with travelers would make me think that motion, action and emotion should be captured more.

Portraits rarely escape the artiface of their production; some argue they never do. Many artists, Loretta Lux as example, use the artiface itself as conceptual motif. I am left feeling some degree of disconnect between stated intention of the photographer and a certain stylistic veneer that lends continuity but may in fact not ultimately be interested in fidelity to subject.

Otherwise I don't see creativity in the composition and in the light. I don't see drama, energy and movement. I'm sorry if I'm wrong, but it seems like if what the photographer did was to ask his subjects to stop what they were doing and simply pose for him. I even see a similarity with the materials used by Yan Arthus Bertrand in some backgrounds and the images presented pop essentially due to the photogenic subjects and artefacts and I don´t see even a small glimpse of the lighting wizardry that Yan Arthus achieved even in the middle of Africa or the Pampas.

Real gypsies came from India (Rajasthan) and look like them. They are descendents of a group of musicians who were called to Europe by a Bohemian king. It would take generations and generations of inter ethnic procreation for them to look like these individuals and they simply don't do that. Only a very small number of individuals may have done that. This would mean that almost all of their genetic heritage would have already been whipped out. This being sad I think these photos are journalistic and are very good in a journalistic project point of view. On the other side it seems like these photos were made with an old film camera and I would accept the naivety of the way classic photographers would have tried to capture a new culture.

No !! unfortunately no-one knows anything about this kid's parents, it is rumored tho that the parents might be a couple from Bulgaria but they are still searching, they did sent thought D.N.A sample from the kid to EUROPOL if that could be in any help for other lost children

According to the latest news, the girl may have been kidnapped from Swedish parents while they were in Greece. There's a tremendous uproar in Scandinavia right now, particularly because local gypsies also have been known for kidnapping small children in Sweden / Finland too for hundreds of years. And now these poor Swedish parents...

In this case the kid is found it's the parents that are missing, anyhow gypsies live on a margin and that is a problem when you live next to them, don't like them never did. What is very interesting tho is that they are all connected somehow (Swedish or Finnish gypsies might be related in a way with those that kidnaped little Maria)

"Swedish or Finnish gypsies might be related in a way with those that kidnaped little Maria"

You mean romani crime in Finland? Well, I won't be politically correct: it is an issue. The percentage of Finnish romani people in Finnish prisons are more than twenty (20) times more than those of (ethnic) Finns pro person. See for example, among other things, the report published by the Finnish police at http://www.optula.om.fi/uploads/3jiava_1.pdf ("Tuoreimpien, vuotta 2005 koskevien syyllisten etnistä taustaa koskevien tietojen mukaan valtaväestö muodostaa syyllisistä 50 %, romanit 18 % ja somalit 12 %.") and at http://www.rikosseuraamus.fi/uploads/9tydvr.pdf ("Tarkastelupäivänä 22.7.2004 vankilan kirjoilla oli 321 vankia, joista romaneja oli 22."), which also reports on this.

And it can't even be stated they're poor and are forced to do illegal things to feed themselves. They do get a lot of benefits on grounds of their ethnic roots (race) - for example, 700 euros / year to purchase their traditional folk costumes. Also, in general, they are allowed to get life-long pension at the age of 18 – read: they don't need to go to work. Needless to say, ethnic (non-Romani) Finns must work until 65 and don't get any extra money. There is negative discrimination in Finland – towards ethnic Finns...

By "The percentage of Finnish romani people in Finnish prisons are more than twenty (20) times more than those of (ethnic) Finns pro person.", I meant a randomly selected Romani Finn is with 20 times more probability has already been in prison than a non-Romani Finn. Not "only" with 20% more probability.

Gypsies project themselves as victims, a big number of them are related with illegal activity, like Finland Greece gave them houses and land to stop sub-living in tents and wagons but some of them sold their houses (that got by spending NOT EVEN ONE SENTS ) to get money and move to other places (maybe Finland, who knows !!!!) Trafficking carpets, drugs and kids is a well paid way of living.More Kids for Gypsies mean extra bonus money from government for every kid and every kid is an extra begging hand bringing even more money in the house.

Menneisyys & Petrogel - had you ever considered that people turn to a life of crime because theyand their entire culture is subject to racism in every aspect of their life, not that the racism exists because they are criminals? Just a thought for you - I wonder how much respect you would have for a law which disadvantages you merely because of your skin colour, for people who hate you for no other reason than your choice of what shelters you from the elements.

Red Valley - Are you claiming that for the vast majority of human history, law has not been racist? Once you've marginalized a group, it takes many generations of equality to change that, as admirably demonstrated right here in this thread. Someone claimed that gypsies were not people for gods sake. Actually we don't know just how long it takes on a global scale yet because of all the marginalised groups in the world (women, gay people, the handicapped, black people in Caucasian lands, people not of the state religion, people not of the perceived state religion etc etc etc) not one single one has yet received equality in society. So no, we don't get to pat ourselves on the back just because the law changed some time ago - we still need to make an effort in our society to remove that historic prejudice. If you can, under the veil of anonymity that the internet provides judge all gypsies based on a BBC documentary about one single gypsy family, you are a racist and you are the problem.

Shengji Obviously you don't know a thing of what you're talking about, you've mixed up gays handicapped people, black, yellow and white with gypsies, just to show ... sorry to pretend how caring and progressive and open minded you are towards minorities. So my best wishes to involve with them, get related with them and then we'll talk over again !!!!

Petrogel - what do you know about me exactly? Do you know if I am any of the minorities I have mentioned? What exactly is wrong with recognising that discriminatory treatment of people due to their race, gender or sexual orientation et al is a bad thing?

You seem to be saying that I am really as big a racist as you yet I am pretending to not be. Do you have any evidence to suggest that the opinions I have stated here are fake?

No, of course you don't, you don't even know my nationality. Why don't you stick to using the English language you understand, your statement "So my best wishes to involve with them, get related with them and then we'll talk over again !!!!" literally makes no sense. Use the English language properly or don't bother.

Now, lets get real. You are a racist. You are an embarrassment to the human race. You need some good education because obviously the education you have received has failed you. That people like you still exist is shameful post 1949.

Shenji I don't know your nationality i know nothing about you and not willing to, as i do not care if you are a gay, Hermaphrodite, Handicapped or a gypsy You claim that i'm calling you a racist, NO Shengji i'm calling you a hypocrite, talking about something you know nothing about, confusing minorities with legitimacy

"Now let's get real" Shengji, You !! The Epitome of the - one man human rights institution- Humans race embarrassment is good as long as it differentiates me form you, my hypocrite commenter.

So, you're stating the vast majority of Finns, Spaniards, Italians, the French etc. are racist because they all hate Romani people – and this is why Romani people have to turn to crime, in their desperation. (I'm listing these Western countries because the Romani crime is about twenty times bigger in each of them than that of the people of non-Romani origins. I don't even list Eastern countries with even higher Romani population – we all do know they all have huge problems with Romani people there. Surely because of anti-Romani racism. Dead sure. Oh yes.)

Who's the racist? I think it's you. You're stating _all_ those nations, _all_ those people are racist, Nazi and hate everything Romani because they need to hate. Dozens of millions of West-European people. All of them. Even the French, who really can't be accused of sympathy towards Nazis during WWII. You should probably look into the mirror? It's YOU that are racist.

Menneisyys : No no, not all those people, just the literal people I have called racist here - which is 2 people, both of which said racist things. You'll notice I carefully explained why I was calling them racist.

I am something-ist, I don't know the word but yes I do discriminate against those who spread hatred. I'm proud of it. I would lock them in a camp and give them the finest, most progressive education until they understand that every homo homo sapian on this earth is a person and deserves to be treated equally. I'm proud of this. Do you think Petrogel would put his real name to his comments? Do you think Redvalley or Hawaiivolcano would tell their mothers their vile beliefs?

Petrogel: You wrote "...i know nothing about you..." [sic] yet you earlier wrote " ...show ... sorry to pretend how..." So please tell me once again why you felt so comfortable accusing me of only pretending from a position of ignorance of my intentions.

In fact Petrogel, lets really get into this, now you have stated that you know nothing about me yet, aside from the pretend thing, you have also stated that I am "talking about something [I] know nothing about". Again, how would you know. You know nothing about me.

You call me a hypocrite, now what have I done that is hypocritical? Have I discriminated against gypsies myself? Please do tell me where I did this. Your final statement in the paragraph is most confusing. "confusing minorities with legitimacy". Apart from another demonstration of your terrible English, could you please tell me what you wanted to get across here, because I read this statement as you claiming that just because someone is a minority, they have no legitimacy - though I am probably wrong in that interpretation which is why it's important to not mangle your English.

There is no subjectivity here - English has rules, known as grammar, and you broke them. This means your sentence objectively made no sense. There is nothing to understand, you can't answer any of my questions, I'm done with you. Continue white knighting for racists, if that makes you happy, I'll not be checking this thread any more. You're inability to actually answer my questions tells me all I need to know - that you are happy to make statements in ignorance. Funny how when ever we are talking about racism, we always find ignorance.

Look, the pair of you - you are both accusing each other of hippocracy - Shengji is saying that Petrogel is a hippocrite because he is making statements like "I don't know anything about you but you are pretending to care about gypsies" whereas Petrogel is saying Shengji is a hippocrite becase he doesn't really care about gypsies but is claiming too.

It has to be said, Shengji can at least show evidence of Petrogels hippocracy, and Petrogel has contradicted himself by admitting he knows nothing about SAhengjis motives yet claims he knows what his motives are, so I think we can say Petrogel is a hippocrite, but his refusal to offer any evidence to substantiate his own claim of Shengjis hipporcacy probably indicates that shengji is not a hippocrite.

At the end of the day, Petrogel is defending some nasty points of view and Shengji is defending against racism, I know who I think a great deal of, and who I have no time for - and Shengji is the winner, despite Godwins law.

@Shenji: "No no, not all those people, just the literal people I have called racist here - which is 2 people, both of which said racist things. You'll notice I carefully explained why I was calling them racist."

This wasn't a direct answer to my question. You had previously stated the following: "had you ever considered that people turn to a life of crime because theyand their entire culture is subject to racism in every aspect of their life, not that the racism exists because they are criminals?" and "Are you claiming that for the vast majority of human history, law has not been racist? Once you've marginalized a group, it takes many generations of equality to change that"

All the above do mean Romani people are (to put it mildly) over-represented in crime statistics because and ONLY because they have always been (and are now too) surrounded by racists who hate them. You've called 70-80% of Europeans racist haters, who hate people only because of their skin color and without any further reason.

A remark on the 70%: yes, it's true they (ethnical Romani people – not to be mistaken for New Age travelleres, that is, the ones the above DPReview article is about) are hated almost everywhere in Europe. Even in France, which, as I've pointed out above, really doesn't have a Nazi history. There, in a recent survey (27/Sep/2013, BVA / Le Parisien), 93% of the French responders stated Romani people in France couldn't integrate into society and a whopping 77% of them wanted Romanian and Bulgarian Romani people to be expelled from France. Pretty staggering numbers, aren't they? And in other countries these figures are even higher.

Interestingly, people that come from India to work here aren't hated at all because of their skin color – pretty interesting, isn't it? What can be the reason for that? Ask an arbitrary Frenchmen what he thinks of Indian people. I guarantee he won't hate them. Romani people? Well, the figures have been presented above...

How come Indians aren't hated at all, while Romani people, who have exactly the same skin color, are? Don't Europeans just hate some people exclusively on the grounds of their skin color, after all - as opposed to what you've initially stated?

Racism is way more nuanced than skin colour my friend. Considering the hatred against carcasian gypsies, I would suggest that Europeans are racist against gypsies no matter the skin colour. Also are you really denying that Europe has been historically racist, really? Need I mention the crusades, the ethnic cleansing that was practised up until last century.

Regarding france, they are notoriously racist against arabs, you really have no leg to stand on with that one, especially considering the recent demand of the French government by the Chinese governement that the French ensure the safety of chinese nationals in their land because of racist attacks against them. You don't need to admit to being a nazi to be a racist do you.

But my main question to you is, do you really, genuinely believe that Europe was not or is not racist. PLease do google "racism in eastern european football" "christian crusades" "russian racism" "European slave traders" to research your answer

"Where's my camera, this is going in my gallery of really stupid things people say."

This wasn't an answer. I asked you to provide me an answer.

1, you stated Romani people commit crime because they're surrounded by haters and that the majority of Europeans dislike Romani people only because of their skin color. That is, you stated the exact opposite of “Romani people are hated throughout Europe because they commit far too much crime and refuse to take part in education / work life.”

2, when asked to do so, you couldn't defend your point. I asked you several times to do it. For some help, I even asked you to explain why Europeans don't hate immigrants of Indian origin – exactly the same origin where Romani people are originally from and with exactly the same skin color. After all, it was you who stated Romani people are hated in Europe because of their skin color.

"Menneisyys: Oh my god, you just legitimately tried to do a "Europe isn't racist but they all hate Romani Gypsies""

I in no way stated _all_ Europeans hate Romani people. I've even shown you some exact (French) figures showing "only" 77...93% of the French hate / dislike Gypsies. Please try to remain objective. And answer my questions instead of namecalling.

The answer to your question is that Indians are subject to racial abuse every day in my experience. See the slang word Packi for reference and don't imagine that your average Brit who uses the term actually knows how to tell the difference between an Indian and Pakistani. Hell, I'm from the border regions between the two countries and I can't tell the difference.

So now that we've answered your question, can we get back to the "Europe isn't racist, but more than 3/4 of them are prejudiced against at least one race". Because it's making you look stupid. Don't take that as name calling, I'm seriously saying that this statement makes you look really dim and I'm giving you many chances to explain it.

Oh Shengji sengji sengji you can't be that stupid, of course you 're not, you just playing stupid (i really hope you can understand that). If racism is to oppose unlawfulness, then you 're gonna find a lot of racist in this thread. ( is your English good enough to understand this ?).Instead of interpreting what is written the way it is convenient for you and your arguments, it would be better to read our comments the way they are written, but then you won't be able to shout out loud how liberal or broadminded person, you want us to believe you are, and there is why i call you a hypocrite. Me and Menneisyys we were talking about a particular incident of a child abduction, when you pop up, no-one invited you here you've just imposed yourself in, so please stop the hypocrisy.

I'm sure you Understood everything that was written in this thread even when you were pretending you weren't, Hypocrite.

I know. It was Shengji that stated Romani people are hated solely because of their skin color. This is why I asked him (her?) to explain why recent immigrants of Indian origin don't complain about racism in Europe – as opposed to Romani people, who do.

"Also are you really denying that Europe has been historically racist, really? Need I mention the crusades, the ethnic cleansing that was practised up until last century."

Show me any country in the world where there weren't ethnic cleansings before the last century. Only one. Let's start with the U.S. Or Australia. What happened to the original inhabitants there?

OK, you've stated we Europeans are racists, bigots and everything. Let's take a look at other continents, then.

Canada has recently expelled hundreds of Romani refugees from the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary – and stopped visa-free entry for the former state, only to stop Romani refugees to enter Canada. Why doesn't Canada want the Romani people either? After all, each year hundreds of thousands of immigrants enter Canada to work there and Canada certainly welcomes everybody that wants to work. Are Canadians racist too by not wanting Romani people to enter? Or, is there a much more evident explanation for their expelling Romani refugees?

1) I posed the question, which is different to stating a fact, that maybe populations who have a high prison incidence are not in fact inherently criminals, but perhaps the treatment of their race over hundreds of years is responsible for their current attitudes to the law. This has been the subject of many studies, mostly black Americans that all conclude that people who are marginalised over many generations are more likely to turn to crime. Which makes more sense than the opposing point of view which is that gypsies are genetic predisposed to crime.

Oh Petrogel peihrtjnir eikfnfeiopne, I shall lower myself to respond to you one more time. If you want a private conversation, use Private messages. If you post on a public board, expect the public to join in. Is this your public message board? I don't see a little Dpreview logo next to your name, I wonder how the DPreview staff feel about your attempt to censor other users of their board? I wonder about the level of your arrogance that you can tell me who I can and cannot talk to.

Now consider yourself ignored! Always remember it would be easier to read things the way they are written if you write them using proper language. Adieu, mon petite merde.

"The answer to your question is that Indians are subject to racial abuse every day in my experience. See the slang word Packi for reference and don't imagine that your average Brit who uses the term actually knows how to tell the difference between an Indian and Pakistani. "

Pakistanians are not Indians. They're two entirely different countries with entirely different culture, religion etc. You certainly haven't ever been to, say, Finland. In Finland, there are TONS of Indian immigrants; mostly engineers. I've NEVER heard any of them complaining about racism. I haven't EVER read ANY article stating "an Indian immigrant was attacked by racists". Local Romani people? Heck, they are generally disliked. Not exactly without reason.

Menneisyys - Thankyou for telling me about the culture I grew up in, I did not know that the only difference between Pakistanis and Indians was an arbitrary border created by British Imperialism. That for thousands of years, the two countries were one distinct culture. Wow, thanks for educating little old me, with your European learning, surely I would never have understood my own culture without you pointing things out for me.

Oh, and "your experience" pales in comparison to my experience, given that I am an Indian Immigrant. Perhaps you need to read some more. Including what I wrote. Never read any reports of racism against Indian immigrants, well now you have. I was an Indian immigrant and I was subject to racist abuse.

Oh and while I mentioned Europe, don't think that I don't see racism everywhere in the world. All the more reason to fight it on every front.

"Oh, and "your experience" pales in comparison to my experience, given that I am an Indian Immigrant. Perhaps you need to read some more. Including what I wrote."

Show me ONE article or ONE complaint from the Finnish press / Indians living in Finland of Finns' abusing / hating them. I'm absolutely sure you won't be able to do so. Indian immigrants in Finland are highly regarded as they're doing valuable work and contribute to the state a lot.

In this regard, Indians and local (Finnish) Romani people are handled by the Finnish majority in exactly the opposite way in Finland. As opposed to what you've originally stated. You did state Europe is full of racists, who only hate on grounds of their subject's skin color, and this is the only reason for Romani people's at least an order of magnitude higher crime. This is in no way true - at least not in Finland. (I'm not sure about the UK as I'm not living there. I know there are a lot of Pakistanis in there.)

"Never read any reports of racism against Indian immigrants, well now you have. I was an Indian immigrant and I was subject to racist abuse."

Again: I "only" know the situation in Finland. I don't have much info on the UK.

Indians, while they do have dark(er) skin color, have NEVER been attacked, abused in Finland - as opposed to local Romani people (of the same skin color), who are hated as much as in other European countries. Everybody knows they (Indians) are valuable workforce working diligently.

I don't know if posting links here is frowned upon, but google "racism against indians in finland" and check out the second link, the first comment for your very first report of racism against an indian by a Finnish man.

I feel we should open a bottle of champagne or something, this is going to be a turning point in your life /sarcasm

FYI, don't think my own culture is immune from my criticism, I truely believe that Indians and Pakistani's are some of the most racist people in the world.

"I am an Indian and did not encounter much racism in Finland.I was actually treated with a lot of respect wherever I went.Dunno why though.I am darker than the average Indian.Just got the right group of people I suppose."

"I would like enrique to explain unemployment statistics and why finns dont discriminate etiopians, khameronians, kenyans and nigerians. Also that why racism doesnt touch indians and chinese. There groups with americans and english do have better employment status than estonians. Couldnt find stats, with brief search, with finns included and cba to make one but i remember kenyans had best, way over finns."

The key sentence there is "Also that why racism doesnt touch indians and chinese". Exactly what I stated - Finns do NOT hate Indians (and the Chinese).

Hey, you asked me to find one, I found one within 5 minutes. I also found shocking statistics about racism in finland, only 10% of which was directed at Romani's. Apparently you guys don't like Finnish Kale or muslims

Again, feel free to post the link. As I've stated above, Google only provided me with two links when I googled for "racism against indians in finland" (exact string). On both pages several Indians did state they have been highly regarded by Finns.

" As there are people in Finland who discriminate because of a person’s skin color, there are many others who think differently."

That is, "racists" (who would handle Indians and Romani people in exactly the same way) are in minority in Finland. The word "many" also emphasizes this.

We're speaking of very rare cases here. 99% of Finns aren't racists - that is, ones that hate on grounds of skin color only, and not behavior. Hating / disliking Romani people because of their crime and way of life is an entirely different thing and doesn't have to do anything with (simple) racism. Then, 80% of Europe's inhabitants could easily be labeled "racists". And also the Canadian government, actually.

Again, racism is equally hating everybody of the same skin color - according to you as well, who stated it's because of their skin color that Romani people are hated in most European countries.

"hating / disliking Romani people because of their crime and way of life is an entirely different thing "

No, it's the very definition of racism - you do not judge an individual on their actions but on their race - racism.

Oh and FYI - 14% of Finnish people consider themselves racist, which makes your 99% figure look like you made it up. Because that what you do, make up your own "facts". Anyway, my pizza is here and obviously, you are a lost cause. I hope your family is never discriminated against, I can tell you from personal experience, it is awful. I wish you well, but I will not be returning to this cesspool of a thread, you continue to pat yourselves on the back and write made up facts about a group of people because you don't like that they live in caravans while insisting that you are not racist even though you admit to not liking people because of their race.

"No, it's the very definition of racism - you do not judge an individual on their actions but on their race - racism."

If "race" is connected to skin color and origins, then, you're wrong. Again, 99% of Finns do NOT hate Indians. I've just cited some posts posted by ethnic Indians stating the same.

Romani people belong to exactly the same race as Indians. Are they hated in FInland (as well as everywhere else)? Yes. Why? Because of their race? Nope, not in the least, as I've just pointed out. Why then? Yes, it's their way of life and crime that makes the majority of Europeans hate them.

This, again, is NOT racism. People of exactly the same origins (Indian immigrants) are NOT hated. At least not in Finland.

Rominis are a distinct cultural group completely separate to Indians, come on - you just told me that Pakistani's were separate to Indians because the English drew a line on a map! Now you insist they are the same despite living on dofferent continents for many generations leading completely different lifestyles and speaking different languages.

I believe I wrote the opposite regarding skin colour, go read what I read again, when I first referred to it I was talking about the infamous segregation laws for "blacks". Reread what I wrote. Now I really am gone

"Rominis are a distinct cultural group completely separate to Indians, come on - you just told me that Pakistani's were separate to Indians because the English drew a line on a map! Now you insist they are the same despite living on dofferent continents for many generations leading completely different lifestyles and speaking different languages."

RACIALLY, they're the same. They're from India - as are current Indian immigrants. CULTURALLY, sure they're vastly different.

It's the Romani CULTURE (= way of life) that Europeans hate, not the RACE. If the current Indian immigrants had the same culture as ROmani people, they'd be as hated as Romani people. Because of their culture, crime, unwillingness to go to school / work etc. They (Indians) aren't hated - because Europeans don't generally hate anyone based on their race / origins, only their culture / way of life / crime. I hope I've explained the vast difference.

Wel, then there is no racism because if you go far enough back, we're all related to the 100 strong tribe which left Africa. This is why I called you stupid.

You are arguing linguistics in an attempt to distract from the fact that you dislike someone as a result of their identity. You discriminate against someone who identifies as a gypsy, because they identify as a gypsy. Justify it all you like, you are still treating some people unfairly as a result of their birth and that makes you the problem.

1, "haters" (the majority of Europeans) aren't hating Romani people because of their skin color, as opposed to what you've stated below.

2, they hate Romani people because of their way of life and very high crime percentage. Police statistics don't lie. If needed, I can Google a lot more for you.

3, they don't hate people of Romani origin / race NOT leading the traditional life of Romani people, just like they don't hate people of Indian origins - as I've also proved with citations proving Indians are highly regarded in Finland (unlike Romani people belonging to the same race and having the same skin color).

All in all, Europeans aren't dumb racists, no matter what you state. It's a certain way of life they hate and not a race.

"Wel, then there is no racism because if you go far enough back, we're all related to the 100 strong tribe which left Africa. This is why I called you stupid."

Absolutely wrong analogy. The descendants of those tribes are of widldly different skin colors. "Dumb racists" couldn't hate all of them because of their entirely _different_ skin color.

Romani people and Indians, on the other hand, have the _same_ skin color. The exact reason you've stated to be hated in Europe. Do Europeans, in general, hate Indians as much as Romani people? Hell, no!

That is, your initial assumption ("Romani people are hated because they have dark skin color") is absolutely false.

Even more ridiculous was your other, initial statement "Romani people (need to) commit crime out of pure despair because they've always been hated".

Tribe, singular. One tribe of less than 100 people crossed from Africa and every single last one of us who populated the rest of the world is related to them. So where do you draw the line at where a race is created, because you seem to think that hundreds of generations on a different continent living a different lifestyle speaking a different language does not make a new race, yet you seemed pretty certain that Pakistani's are ethnically different to Indians, despite only being separated by politics. Were east Germans a different race to west Germans? No. Are European Romani gypsies a different race to Indians, yes.

And what is your deal with skin colour, this is not the first time you've brought it up in a completely meaningless way. You do understand that your Caucasian skin is a random mutation, your ancestors were black, right?

Oh, and please don't misquote me, I didn't say they needed to commit crime because of hardship, that's your make believe of what I said.

"I posed the question, which is different to stating a fact, that maybe populations who have a high prison incidence are not in fact inherently criminals, but perhaps the treatment of their race over hundreds of years is responsible for their current attitudes to the law. This has been the subject of many studies, mostly black Americans that all conclude that people who are marginalised over many generations are more likely to turn to crime. Which makes more sense than the opposing point of view which is that gypsies are genetic predisposed to crime."

Which I raised as a discussion point, a discussion you are obviously so uncomfortable with you are wriggling and writhing because it questions your arrogant beliefs. And you are arrogant, because one post after telling you my ethnicity, you decided to "educate" me on my background, which was completely untrue. I'm calling it now, you're a racist too, and with that, I am done. srly

"perhaps the treatment of their race over hundreds of years is responsible for their current attitudes to the law."

certainly means you "explain" the very high crime rate of the Romani people by other people's having "mistreating" and "hating" them for ages.

Don't you feel it's a ridiculous "explanation"? It's like telling for example Finns:

"You're free to kill all Russians / Swedes because, back in time, they have attacked / enslaved you"

or telling Indians

"You're free to kill / misuse the English because they have enslaved you some hundreds of years ago".

Unfortunately, the casual relationship is exactly the opposite in reality. Romani people are generally hated in Europe BECAUSE they commit a lot of crime (kidnapping, drug selling / distributing etc.) and, in general, are unwilling to attend schools / go to work. And definitely not the other way around.

"Unfortunately, the casual relationship is exactly the opposite in reality. Romani people are generally hated in Europe BECAUSE they commit a lot of crime "

This is you making up facts again, and neatly sidestepping the point that you hate Romani's whether they commit a crime or not. You hate them based on the fact that they are a Romani. Not based on what crimes they have committed. That is why you are a racist. You could have a Finnish murderer living next door to you one one side and a law abiding Romani man living the other side and you would want to get rid of the Romani man. Why, because you assume the Finnish man is unlikely to have been involved in crime and you assume based on race that the Romani man is involved in crime. So again, you sir, are a racist. Your opinions are vile and you are the problem. If your figures about the number of Europeans is accurate, though you do make facts up, then Europe needs to adjust it's education system because it is failing.

Oh, this must be my lucky day! I've just stumbled across a translation of the prison population of Finland. Now it doesn't detail race which is a shame because I sense that your stats are made up, but it does document gender. The current, up to the minute prison population of Finland is 20 times more males than females. 20 times, the exact number you were talking about above. So, if you not a racist, surely you apply the same standards to gender, right? So, we need to rewrite everything you wrote about Romani's about men - based on your justification of your views, that because there is a 20 times greater likelihood of a Romani ending up in prison, they should be discriminated against. Because if you don't apply those same standards, you are being racist. Which we all know you are, because you are a man and you wouldn't stand for discrimination against yourself based on crimes other people who just so happen to share your gender committed.

In fact, I don't doubt you would be interested in working out why there are so many men in prison, and I suspect you wouldn't be happy with the explanation "Men are just culturally criminals". So why treat Romani's in this way? Just maybe, you're beginning to realise how unfair racism is, judging people on the actions of another is never fair, no matter how you look at it. By all means, if a Romani family is proven to be a criminal family, make your judgements on that but don't judge people who you know only their ethnic origin based on your prejudices, no matter how justified they are. In civilised society, we consider someone innocent until proven guilty, no if's or buts. If you wish to consider yourself a civilised man, you can't judge a gypsy a criminal just because they are a gypsy. That's racist.

". You could have a Finnish murderer living next door to you one one side and a law abiding Romani man living the other side and you would want to get rid of the Romani man."

Again: we're talking about percentages and possibilities. No one stated there aren't decent Romani people. No one stated there aren't vile native Finns. It's just the _percentages_ that are wildly different, also clearly seen in official police crime statistics.

Of course the majority of Europeans are beware of the Romani people because they, on the whole, commit at least an order of magnitude more crime than non-Romani Europeans. This is a fact also proved by the police statistics.

Again, this doesn't mean ALL Romani people are involved in crime. It just means an _arbitrary_ Romani you see in the street is, on the whole, with 20 times higher probability has already committed crime than an average Finn, Frenchman etc.

THIS is why Europeans dislike the Romani people and not because of their skin color.

"Now it doesn't detail race which is a shame because I sense that your stats are made up, but it does document gender. The current, up to the minute prison population of Finland is 20 times more males than females. 20 times, the exact number you were talking about above."

It's a well-known fact men commit a lot more crime than women in _all_ countries, not only Finland. This, however, doesn't negate the fact that the Romani people also commit about 20 times more crime per capita than non-Romani people in all countries wherever they live. The two figures have nothing to do with each other.

And, again, I'm not a racist. Stating "Romani people commit, on the whole, 20 times more crime and this is the primary reason the majority of Europeans dislike / hate them" isn't racism, particularly if I also link to police statistics clearly stating this.

I just try to explain something to non-Europeans that haven't met many Romani people. There _IS_ a reason for Europeans' disliking the Romani people.

It really doesn't matter why you are racist, you are racist. You are peculiarly obsessed with skin colour, you have taken the fact that I mentioned the famous skin colour laws present in America and South Africa and applied it to everything. You have a strange obsession with pigmentation. You have admitted to having prejudices against Roma (which makes you racist), you have gone into excruciating detail as to why you have them but all the reasons in the world don't stop you being a racist. Some people hate aborigine native Americans because they say that they get too many concessions and afforded more rights than a settler related American. For further proof that you are racist, there is anothr group exactly as likely to have been involved in crime as Roma, men, yet you do not hold prejudice against them. This is because you are not sexist, at least not against men - who knows how you treat women. That you are racist is a fact and denying it is just you lying to yourself, it is clear

By the way, why did you write this: "And now these poor Swedish parents..."

These imaginary Swedish parents, because of course the girl was Bulgarian Roma.. Oh yes, thats right - blonde hair and blue eyes are never found in Roma populations are they - don't start getting obsessed with colour again please, you've embarrassed yourself enough to the whole world. She was genetically Roma, so your racism and the racism of people like you have caused uproar in Scandinavia for nothing.

SO let me ask you one more time - do you think the hatred that mongers like you have stirred up against this family, like the ethnic cleansing people like you inflicted on the Roma people 60 years ago is responsible for the disrespect they treat you and your property with? Can you blame them for hating you back? And now for the final question - these are all rhetorical of course....

Do you care about this little girl any less now that you know she is genetically Roma? Do you care if she was stolen or adopted with consent of her birth parents? Do you care about the "poor Roma parents...".

We all know the answer, you do not care about her - and even though she is 6 years old, you are prejudiced against her. You actually changed your opinion of her based solely on her ethnic origins. Doesn't that make you feel low, dirty, scum? It would me, if I was like you. You can't roll out your crime statistics against a 6 year old because she is innocent, barely a child. You can't get weird about skin colour because she has the nazi ideal, blonde hair and blue eyes. She is the ultimate proof of your racism and I hope she grows up to change and educate the world as a result of your hatred towards her and her culture. I hope she grows up to read this, I hope she marries into your family and holds a mirror to your disgusting toilet of a brain so you can see that you are scum.

Actually I like the pictures more than I expected to. But I think the photographer set out to take some attractive pictures of some photogenic (mostly) female gypsies, not make a gritty social realist documentary portrait of a community, so thats not surprising. Nice to see gypsies portrayed in a positive light for once, and why shouldn't the photographer be selective in choosing his subjects. It's a private project, I dont read that he's pretending anything else.

Interesting -- folks travelling around via horse and wagon. Surprised they haven't made the move to RVs or motorhomes... a much easier life, and not that much more expensive. Or an old school bus, like our hippies used back in the 1960s. Lots of room, and you can paint them up any way you want.

Not a bad life, given decent weather. Great adventures for the kids, so long as they have other kids to play with.

As for the photos, many have a sort of smartphone look, but I suppose that's the style these days.

I've travelled in Romania. The views polluting this thread are widely held in central and eastern Europe and at least some of those espousing them here are of that ilk. I worked with a Hungarian PhD student once who was no different - nice person, objectionable opinions.

There are 3 main groups of travellers in the UK. Gypsies are not a thing of the past, but strictly speaking they aren't gypsies.

1) Romanies. These are what have been referred to as gypsies. It used to be a derogatory name, but now it seems they use the name themselves.

2) Irish Travellers.

3) New Age travellers.

The first 2 are distinct ethnic groups. Whereas the latter is a lifestyle choice i.e. most were not born to families that lived like that. The photographs appear to be of new age travellers, which is presumably why it's called the new gypsies.

I agree with you on the suggestion that they belong to group # 3..The first 3 pictures, in particular, do not look like gypsies in any way.You probably have read about the young blond girl that was found with a gypsy family in Greece recently, and was taken from them because her DNA did not match the "parents'" DNA, and she did not look like any of them. It has been presumed that she was stolen.

Another gypsy girl all over the news is the Paris gypsy girl (and her family).

Gypsies behavior varies from region to region, and in some regions it is not tolerable.

You put the word "people" in quotation marks. Now you are not quoting anyone, so what you are doing is using to quotation marks to show that you are not using the correct word, but we all know what you mean.

To simplify, you have just stated that gypsies are not people. This is obviously absurd and on the level of the people who thought Africans were not human. You have just shown the world exactly what type of person you are, and I'll be honest, the sooner your brand of intolerance is educated out of society, the better and more wonderful a place the world will become.

You prefaced this with the tinfoil hat suggestion that gypsies are trying to "destroy Italy". Really, destroy is the word you wanted there was it? Do go on with this "theory" (and by theory I mean dementia) of yours, how and why are they trying to destroy the nation of Italy?

Shengji, if you would like to educate yourself, watch the "Gypsy Child Thieves" BBC documentary on youtube. I have lived in Romania for almost 40 years and I am familiar with their lifestyle and their culture.

I just find most of these photos lack any photographic merit. Plenty of front-and-centre compositions which are not particularly interesting. A shame really, because there's plenty of interesting subject material here.

If someone can explain to me if there is anything I am missing please do so.

It's just his style. If you look at his other works, you'll see much of the same.

I don't think he's after any photographic merit itself. That is, he doesn't do anything to influence the shot or the attitudes of his subjects (as in "Do this and say Cheese"). More so, just documenting a subject and letting it speak for itself. He is careful to include elements of their lifestyle (their wagons in the background).

True. In many regions, neither emulating nor ethnic gypsies are looked at kindly. Not even in countries denoted by folklore as their roots, like Hungary, where they are the largest ethnic minority and they're being hated and discriminated against not only by the people, but by the state, too.

These people are not original gypsies like I am they are Irish people living in a camp Real gypsys spread from India a thousand years ago They don't even speak the Romani language All of you are very ignorant of the culture of Gypsys We speak a very Distinctive language that is understandable Throughout the world by Other Gypsies Its like seeing any Asian person and saying they are Chinese Really people you need to google stuff up

There are still real gypsies, so there cannot be "new" gypsies. These are hipster young people with empty lives. Kids of lawyers and business people, looking for meaning in their life. They are romantics at best. The world has seen their lot before. Nothing new here.

Even if it's right that "new gypsies" aren't "gypsies", gypsies don't really do themselves a favor if they think they're better than others because of where they came from, which is just the same old stupid concept of racism others have been using against them for ages.

It's 100s of years ago, not 'thousands.' And Irish "gypsies" are really known as "Travelers." While it was once a fact that "gypsy" was a term of approbation, it now, in English, also means to live a life not tied to any particular chunk of real estate. I'm pretty sure that the author used that sense of the word.

I have been photographing Gypsies in Slovakia for some time... here is how some of them live... http://www.davidsladek.com/pages/images/gallery/1215757069.jpgIt is true that due to antisocial behaviour of quite a large part of their community the whole society has generalized them as enemies and so have many Gypsies developed "anti white" philosophy which is passed over generations.Where the biggest problem lies is the reproduction rate which is far higher than other population and in a not distant future will cause major issues for the host economies.The poorness itself has a big impact on their behaviour but much of it is cultural.Novels can be writen here, if you'd like to know more of my experience, message me...

Well, let me just say that Gypsies are not a thing from the past, and very likely never will be. A bit of timely homework would grant some realistic insight to anyone who seriously wants to work that theme. And next time, please have some respect for people and photography.

PS - anyone who has seen the amount of new camera/lens previews, reviews, and news coverage that we've posted in the past couple of weeks and STILL complains about a couple of pictures stories at the weekend, might have some perspective issues.

I like the articles about how others are using the art of photography. Endless conversations about pixels sensors, noise, etc. distract from the main reason anyone should even be bothering with any of this, ie. making images.

It baffles me why you read such hateful and angry posts on this site. Seems photography would be something that brought most joy. Instead, it seems some use it as an excuse to stew in their own disenchantment I suppose.

Seriously, when you look at the posts in general on this site, the vast majority and angry and hateful. Why do you suppose that is?

Well spoken, skiphunt13. The posts are angry and hateful because people are able to hide behind anonymity and express the alienation they feel - that were they to express same as known persons to their co-workers or spouses they would be unemployed, divorced or both. Anonymity seems to allow people to display their dark sides without a conscience.

Barney, it comes as no surprise that mcshan always takes the first convenient off ramp in any dialog. The technical (and I enjoy it) does not fully represent a photography context; I like the balance - keep it up. Challenging one's perceptions and expanding exposure to a diversity of photographic art, shouldn't incite such vitriol.

It's too bad the person who took these (notice he's not worthy of calling him a photographer) had to resort to using instacrap like color filters to make his images appear interesting. I would expect that from my teenage daughter with her H.S. photos on instagram but not someone who calls himself a photographer. If these were not over-processed as they are, they may not be too bad.

If you think that Iain Mckell, with several published books, is not worthy of calling himself a photographer, I sincerely hope that the stuff in your gallery does not make you feel that you are worthy of that title, because if that is so, we should all pack up our kit and go home.

First of all, sorry for my English, this is not my first language, hope my point is understendable anyway.

Hope you guys are joking. This work is wonderful!

The author didn't want to show misery and pain (although “It’s a hard life,” he says). People in the pics are no traditional gypsies, but a tribe that CHOOSE to live this way.It's more about lifestyle than about etnical heritage.In fact he refers to they subjects as "Dickensian punks, who travel the English countryside in horse-drawn caravans".

Quoting the author " a group of rag-tag teenage rebels who had abandoned the city for the country, living out of double-decker buses. "

Hey, of course it's not the same stuff as other works involving the gypsy people. (They are not)There is even a pic of the supermodel Kate Moss in there, dressed like one of them. So enjoy this wonderful work, think about this romantic and fashinating lifestyle, and why not: enjoy even the aesthetics of this wonderful world.

Gypsies was originaly meant as a slur for Romani (but derived from egyptians) Now it is a term for any nomadic people. But it doesn't really matter what you call them, as long as there is racism any name will get a negative connotation in the end. Political correct naming is just window dressing.

Yup, in today's news there is a story about a young girl who was rescued from a Greek Roma camp - solely because she had pale skin and blond hair. Because of that description, it was presumed that she was a "non-gypsy" who was kidnapped.

For someone who claims to be well travelled, you sure are letting your ignorance flap around. Irish travellers, or gypsies as opposed to say, for example romani travellers are, and I quote Questioning Gypsy identity: ethnic narratives in Britain and America by Brian Belton, though I could just as easily quote Ethnicity and the American cemetery by Richard E. Meyer:

"Irish "an lucht siúil" or Pavee, also called Tinkers or Gypsies (but not to be confused with the Romani people), are a traditionally itinerant people of ethnic Irish origin, who..."

Irish gypsies are caucasian, unless you wish to make the extraordinary claim that the Irish are not.

Nice pics really, more like Benetton advertising campaign than documentary photos, and ten years for this is really too much.Maybe a look at Josef Koudelka photos could help.Very beautiful pics, this is my favorite style.

oselimg, whydo you assume that people who choose to live a travelling lifestyle are suffering? Just to be clear, they are not living in trailers because they can't afford to live in a house - and those wooden trailers are really expensive to keep looking that good. I think you will find that these people have good, well paid jobs and lead comfortable affluent lifestyles for the most part.

oselimg, do clarify - in an article about a photographer who has taken photo's of gypsies, a commenter writes that he's impressed by the "Benetton quality" of the pics.

You respond by saying "What did you expect, we're so vain that even photos of the suffering should look good"

So please, in context, how was I supposed to interpret that any other way? Because if I got it wrong, then your statement was kind of random - what inspired you to even bring up suffering people in the first place?